So to answer Spark's question, I've not read any Marx but my understanding is that his key philosophical points were:

Humanity should be viewed through a prism of social, racial, religious and cultural (class) groupings

Civilisation is the interplay of power dynamics between these groups

Those who own the means of production are engaged in oppression against the working class

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed anything.

I don't know about "most evil", but the above combination of ideas are dangerous because they're both intoxicating/enticing and infinitely destructive when followed through. There's a reason you can in this day and age see people unironically saying "Marx was right" despite him being a primary influence on the majority of the modern history's most brutal regimes.

One thing that I have always found fascinating is how Aristotle anticipated and denounced Marxism in one pithy statement without even the benefit of hindsight:

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Although quarrels are more likely in an unequal society, striving to rectify the inequality may precipitate the very conflict that the citizenry wants to avoid.

Marx's observations arose and caught on because the economy he was basing them on was so obviously a monopsony. From a mid-19thc perspective the subsequent dispersion of market power is pretty remarkable. But it might not have happened if Marx hadn't been so influential. If that's so, Marx made Marx wrong.

Marx was one of the most anti-modernist thinkers there ever was. His view of history as massive, sweeping, and impossible for an individual to influence. Yet all the horrific attempts to apply his ideas were incredibly modernist. It was always an individual or small group of individuals attempting to massively change the course of history through brute force. That modernism is what Stalin and Mao have in common with Hitler and Pol Pot. That's where the evil comes from.

Marx's observations arose and caught on because the economy he was basing them on was so obviously a monopsony. From a mid-19thc perspective the subsequent dispersion of market power is pretty remarkable. But it might not have happened if Marx hadn't been so influential. If that's so, Marx made Marx wrong.

Marx was one of the most anti-modernist thinkers there ever was. His view of history as massive, sweeping, and impossible for an individual to influence. Yet all the horrific attempts to apply his ideas were incredibly modernist. It was always an individual or small group of individuals attempting to massively change the course of history through brute force. That modernism is what Stalin and Mao have in common with Hitler and Pol Pot. That's where the evil comes from.

Slow day at work so I'm responding seriously to a troll thread.

Yeah, in terms of the means of seizing and retaining power, men like Lenin and Mao were probably a lot more heavily influenced by 18th century revolutionaries like Gracchus Babeuf and Robespierre than Marx.

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

I can think of a list of Sydney Grade posters who would contribute a better average post than Bahnz.

Haha that reminds me of a cracking post you made in the 09 Ashes. You were predicting the England line up and each player had a nickname. Strauss was Bounce Catch. Swann was Ugly Duckling. Every player had such a name - except Bopara whom was listed as 'Ravi'. Still makes me laugh now

A great post from you but I suppose a stopped clock is right twice a day

Eh, I'm kinda tired hearing how wrong Marx is from people who never read anything he wrote and who get most of their material on the topic from their local Tory or some journo who is trying to get his linage up. Marx was philosophically a failure, but even though his historic views are commonly decried as wrong, they had a profound impact on historiography. History in those days was only the history of Great Men, and thanks to Marx, the spotlight was shifted towards the people, their living conditions, their customs, their traditions. Nothing like that had been there before. Though in socialist countries, the historiography was much different, almost religious. Focussed on worker martyrs who died fighting the oppression, the great struggles against fascism etc. His work also remains important for sociology and economics but I am not competent to judge how. So please, pack in the 'Marx was wrong in every conceivable way' stuff. And as for the comparison of Marx and Hitler, that is a bit too obvious trolling. Marx might not have been the Darwin of his movement, more of a Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Hegel is the Darwin of Socialism. So Hitler is... not Lenin, cause that's Mussolini. He is Stalin. Works perfectly.

I guess it depends how you define evil. Marx's shortcomings are the shortcomings of the human race, before and after. An inability to appreciate complex systems of individual action and thus consequently a construction of some nonsensical ideal through the faulty perception of his delusions. People who cannot orientate themselves intelligently in this world have to make it about classes and races, which is why it appeals to common people so insidiously. Socialism is on the same sliding scale.

If not for Marx and his influence, apart from the millions upon millions killed, the world would be far more advanced and able to meet human needs. Maybe it wasn't an intended evil, but his characterisation of the social structure made it inevitable that others would use and abuse. Much like those who would advocate to shut down freedom of speech for reasons even 99% of people would agree with; it is eventually directing the **** into the fan.

I guess it depends how you define evil. Marx's shortcomings are the shortcomings of the human race, before and after. An inability to appreciate complex systems of individual action and thus consequently a construction of some nonsensical ideal through the faulty perception of his delusions. People who cannot orientate themselves intelligently in this world have to make it about classes and races, which is why it appeals to common people so insidiously. Socialism is on the same sliding scale.

If not for Marx and his influence, apart from the millions upon millions killed, the world would be far more advanced and able to meet human needs. Maybe it wasn't an intended evil, but his characterisation of the social structure made it inevitable that others would use and abuse. Much like those who would advocate to shut down freedom of speech for reasons even 99% of people would agree with; it is eventually directing the **** into the fan.